Dennis Hastert: When It’s a Crime to Withdraw Your Own Money From Your Bank

New York Times ^ | 06/07/2015 | Josh Barro

[SeekAndFind]

Dennis Hastert has not been indicted on a charge of sexual abuse, nor has he been indicted on a charge of paying money he was not legally allowed to pay. The indictment of Mr. Hastert, a former House speaker, released last week, lays out two counts: taking money out of the bank the wrong way, and then lying to the F.B.I. about what he did with the money.

Does that make sense? Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, for example, is worried that the indictment constitutes government overreach, punishing Mr. Hastert for concealing payments whose disclosure he may have thought would be damaging to his reputation, but which were not illegal.

Federal prosecutors allege Mr. Hastert was paying hush money in exchange for wrongdoing that happened long ago.

But Mr. Hastert is charged with structuring: making repeated four-figure cash withdrawals from his bank in order to avoid the generation of cash transaction reports, which banks are required to send the government about every transaction over $10,000. These reports have been required since 1970, with the intention of helping the federal government identify organized criminals and tax evaders.

To be clear: It’s not illegal simply to take $8,000 out of the bank repeatedly.

“The criminal provisions there do have strong mens rea (criminal intent) requirements: The government has the burden to prove that the defendant knew about the reporting requirement and intended to evade it,” said Jim Copland, who directs the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, a right-of-center think tank. “So this is quite unlike many of the regulatory crimes that can ensnare the unsophisticated.”

[Ken H]

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (or BSA, or otherwise known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act) requires financial institutions in the United States to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering.

Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

[Ken H]

Meant to ping you to post #61.

[SeekAndFind]

The problem I have is this -— file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

WHY? this will flag down as suspicious a lot of small businesses who make less than or a little more than $10,000 regularly and have to deposit the money they make.

This will also flag down travelers who need to withdraw cash for legitimate business overseas.

In creating a law like this, the end result is MORE GOVERNMENT in the lives of people, even as it is arguable if money launderers can’t use other means to escape detection.

[Ken H]

Agree. Keep in mind also that $10,000 in 1970 is about $1,600 today.

[lavaroise]

My point is the perv corrupt GOP should not run as Republican but as Democrats if they want to get away with it. Being a Rino does not pay and they should be out of the party.